Maldonado DA, Sifuentes SJÁ, Lanata EJ

Language: Spanish
References: 48
Page: 145-152
PDF size: 346.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This publication analyzes the types of adhesives, their evolution, the variables that influence adhesion, the use of chlorhexidine, the techniques for inserting the composite, the need to achieve adequate photopolymerization, if necessary the addition of particles by means of abrasive air and the variables that the clinician must analyze when performing adhesive procedures. In conclusion, it has been more than a decade since the products offered by the manufacturers of adhesive systems already met the desired objectives, but it is necessary to simplify the application technique.

REFERENCES

1. Abate P. Resinas restauradoras adhesivos. En: Lanata E. Operatoria dental. Editorial AlfaOmega. 2ª ed. Buenos Aires. 2011, pp. 103-122.

2. Rawls H. Bonding and bonding agents. In: Shen C, Esquivel-Upshaw J. Phillips' science of dental materials. Elsevier. 2022 a, pp 115-127.

3. Rawls H. Resin based composites. In: Shen C, Rawls H, Esquivel-Upshaw J. Phillips' science of dental materials. Elsevier. 2022 b, pp. 87-114.

4. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34 (6): 849-853.

5. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Restorative materials: resin composite and polimers. In: Craig's restorative dental materials. Elsevier, 2019, pp 135-170.

6. Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of "macro" test methods. Dent Mater. 2010; 26(2): e38-49.

7. Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of "micro" bond strength test methods. Dent Mater. 2010; 26 (2): e50-62.

8. Lenzi TL, Tedesco TK, Soares FZ, Loguercio AD, Rocha Rde O. Chlorhexidine does not increase immediate bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive to caries-affected dentin of primary and permanent teeth. Braz Dent J. 2012; 23 (4): 438-442.

9. Kiuru O, Sinervo J, Vahanikkila H, Anttonen V, Tjaderhane L. MMP inhibitors and dentin bonding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Dent. 2021; 2021: 9949699.

10. Montagner AF, Sarkis-Onofre R, Pereira-Cenci T, Cenci MS. MMP inhibitors on dentin stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 93 (8): 733-743.

11. Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Peumans M. A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater. 2005; 21 (4): 375-383.

12. Lindberg A, van Dijken JW, Lindberg M. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in class II cavities. J Dent. 2007; 35 (2): 124-129.

13. Borges AB, Torres CR, Cassiano KV, Toyama RV, Pucci CR. Influence of matrix and insertion technique on the microleakage and microhardness of posterior composite restorations. Gen Dent. 2009; 57 (2): 163-170.

14. Peumans M, Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005; 113 (6): 512-518.

15. Schroeder M, Correa IC, Bauer J, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2017; 62: 36-53.

16. Coe J. Which adhesive strategy for non-carious cervical lesions? Evid Based Dent. 2017; 18 (4): 119-120.

17. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007; 23 (1): 2-8.

18. Heintze SD, Loguercio AD, Hanzen TA, Reis A, Rousson V. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations - An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters. Dent Mater. 2022; 38 (5): e109-e135.

19. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent. 2006; 34 (7): 427-435.

20. Naghipur S, Pesun I, Nowakowski A, Kim A. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116 (3): 336-339.

21. Borgia E, Baron R, Borgia JL. Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth: a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal Study. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28 (1): e195-e203.

22. Thyvalikakath T, Siddiqui ZA, Eckert G, LaPradd M, Duncan WD, Gordan VV et al. Survival analysis of posterior composite restorations in National Dental PBRN general dentistry practices. J Dent. 2024; 141: 104831.

23. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry-European Section. J Dent. 2014; 42 (4): 377-383.

24. Maldonado A, Sifuentes JA, Lanata EJ. Biomimética ¿Un término nuevo? RODYB. 2024; 13 (3): 7-10.

25. Wang Z, Jiang T, Sauro S, Wang Y, Thompson I, Watson TF et al. Dentine remineralization induced by two bioactive glasses developed for air abrasion purposes. J Dent. 2011; 39 (11): 746.

26. Tiskaya M, Shahid S, Gillam D, Hill R. The use of bioactive glass (BAG) in dental composites: a critical review. Dent Mater. 2021; 37 (2): 296-310. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.015.

27. Sinjari B, Santilli M, D'Addazio G, Rexhepi I, Gigante A, Caputi S et al. Influence of dentine pre-treatment by sandblasting with aluminum oxide in adhesive restorations. An in vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13 (13): 3026.

28. Simila HO, Boccaccini AR. Sol-gel bioactive glass containing biomaterials for restorative dentistry: a review. Dent Mater. 2022; 38 (5): 725-774.

29. Taha AA, Patel MP, Hill RG, Fleming PS. The effect of bioactive glasses on enamel remineralization: a systematic review. J Dent. 2017; 67: 9-17.

30. Fernando D, Attik N, Pradelle-Plasse N, Jackson P, Grosgogeat B, Colon P. Bioactive glass for dentin remineralization: a systematic review. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017; 76: 1369-1377.

31. Mocquot C, Attik N, Pradelle-Plasse N, Grosgogeat B, Colon P. Bioactivity assessment of bioactive glasses for dental applications: a critical review. Dent Mater. 2020; 36 (9): 1116-1143.

32. Guba CJ, Cochran MA, Swartz ML. The effects of varied etching time and etching solution viscosity on bond strength and enamel morphology. Oper Dent. 1994; 19 (4): 146-153.

33. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Uribe M, Ceja I, Saadia M. Enamel deproteinization and its effect on acid etching: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008; 33 (1): 13-19. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.33.1.ng5462w5746j766p.

34. Silverstone LM, Saxton CA, Dogon IL, Fejerskov O. Variation in the pattern of acid etching of human dental enamel examined by scanning electron microscopy. Caries Res. 1975; 9 (5): 373-387.

35. Pereira TB, Jansen WC, Pithon MM, Souki BQ, Tanaka OM, Oliveira DD. Effects of enamel deproteinization on bracket bonding with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35 (4): 442-446.

36. Kelly AM, Kallistova A, Küchler EC, Romanos HF, Lips A, Costa MC et al. Measuring the microscopic structures of human dental enamel can predict caries experience. J Pers Med. 2020; 10 (1): 5. doi: 10.3390/jpm10010005.

37. Al-Daher MS, Sultan K, Hajeer MY, Burhan AS. Enamel deproteinization or sandblasting for enamel reconditioning before acid etching to enhance the shear bond strength of metallic brackets in a third bonding: an in vitro study. Cureus. 2024; 16 (8): e66210. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66210.

38. Ercan E, Ozekinci T, Atakul F, Gul K., Antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in infected root canal: in vivo study. J Endod. 2004; 30 (2): 84-87.

39. Valencia R, Espinosa R, Borovoy N, Pérez S, Ceja I, Saadia M. Deproteinization effectiveness on occlusal enamel surfaces and resultant acid etching patterns: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018; 42 (6): 434-441. doi: 10.17796/1053-4625-42.6.5.

40. Lantana EJ, Lombardo NP. Tecnología adhesiva y preparaciones para composites en el sector anterior [Adhesive technology and preparations for composites in the anterior sector]. Rev Asoc Odontol Argent. 1988; 76 (4): 138-41. Spanish. PMID: 3077949.

41. Maravankin F. Biseles en preparaciones dentarias para restauraciones directas con resinas compuestas en dientes anteriores. Criterios vigentes y perspectivas. Una visión diferente. RODYB. 2006; 1 (1): 9-15.

42. Owens BM, Halter TK, Brown DM. Microleakage of tooth-colored restorations with a beveled gingival margin. Quintessence Int. 1998; 29 (6): 356-361.

43. Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, Milia E. Influence of marginal bevels on microleakage around class V cavities bonded with seven self-etching agents. Am J Dent. 2004; 17 (4): 257-261.

44. Lührs AK, Jacker-Guhr S, Günay H, Herrmann P. Composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions-Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable? Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020; 6 (5): 558-567. doi: 10.1002/cre2.310.

45. Mahn E, Rousson V, Heintze S. Meta-Analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17 (5): 391-403. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a35008.

46. Swanson TK, Feigal RJ, Tantbirojn D, Hodges JS. Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2008; 30 (2): 134-140.

47. Soliman S, Preidl R, Karl S, Hofmann N, Krastl G, Klaiber B. Influence of cavity margin design and restorative material on marginal quality and seal of extended class II resin composite restorations in vitro. J Adhes Dent. 2016; 18 (1): 7-16. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a35520.

48. Da Costa TR, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effect of enamel bevel on the clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25 (5): 346-356. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12042.